Should we go to Phoenix?

Comment

Comment by Madelyn Campbell on June 14, 2010 at 6:28pm

We also need to remember that it's not just a matter of keeping our dollars out of AZ. If we do go to AZ, we are exposing our own people to the abuses of the law. We are still an overwhelmingly white, non-hispanic denomination. But these are not the folks who will be stopped on the street and asked to show papers. I have been in that situation once, and it is a bit chilling (in another country -- apparently sitting in a cafe and talking for a long time was suspicious). Do we want to ask folks to go to AZ and subject themselves to this type of abuse?
This law isn't about illegal immigration. It is about legally justifying harassment of people who look different. This is about the 1936 Olympics. I don't think we should be contributing to the new Leni Riefenstahl. GA needs to pull out.
Madelyn Campbell

Comment by Natalia Averett on June 14, 2010 at 1:27pm

First, if you haven't read the resolution that led to Morales' letter (or read his letter), please do. The resolution is at http://www.uua.org/aboutus/governance/boardtrustees/index.shtml. The letter is at http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/166693.shtml.
There are a number of issues not addressed by Morales' letter. To summarize, among the concerns are the impact on diversity within UUism, the false either/or presented, the lack of acknowledgment that GA is a week-long business meeting attended by few people relative to the number of people who normally attend a significant social witness event and organized in way that would make it difficult to make a sustained social witness activity a focus well above all other activities for the week.
The letter also does nothing to address safety. Part of the UUA Board resolution supporting the boycott says "Be it resolved: we will not meet in a state of fear."
The Board is acknowledging that not all UUs will be welcome in Arizona and so long as that is the case, we should do as we did with the 1988 General Assembly, and remove the convention from Arizona. They also note they had already considered the financial factors and the opportunity for witness and determined that a boycott is critical to supporting all UUs as well as to bringing an end to this law.

The fact that numerous polls (including an April 30th Gallup poll) show that more than 50% of Americans support the Arizona law shows why so many individuals, organizations and officials, feeling a sense of urgency and need for drastic action, are supporting a boycott, including some of the nation’s largest unions, who represent many Latinos, and the nation’s oldest and largest Latino advocacy group and even an Arizona congressman.

I am among the thousands of individuals who have already pledged to boycott as well as join protests and request the federal government intercede. If you would like to personally join Boycott Intolerance you can sign up at http://www.nclr.org/section/boycott/.
The pledge states:
“I am aware that, in the short term, these actions may adversely affect some Arizonans who opposed the bill and others who are likely to be its principal targets. However, any short-term adverse impacts on these communities that result from this campaign are far outweighed by the need to combat the systemic profiling and discrimination that will occur as a result of this unjust law.”
We know how bad a boycott can be for people. Yes, there are others ways to protest (the Phoenix Suns have changed their jerseys to Los Suns, which the team and owner have stated are a show of protest against the law, the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders is seeking a court injunction against enforcement). But as stated in the pledge above we believe in order to fight the law (and others pending like it across the country) and to make our feelings known to the more than 50% of Americans who support the law, we need to include a national boycott in our actions.
How effective can a boycott be?
From http://wcco.com/politics/boycotts.arizona.rybak.2.1693513.html
“Arizona has a history of being boycotted over race issues. In the late 1980s, early 1990s, Arizona was boycotted because it did not have Martin Luther King, Jr. Day as an official state holiday.

Some scholars claim Arizona lost 130 conventions, Super Bowl XXVII [when the NFL rescinded its offer] and 350 million dollars.

It worked. Arizona voters approved the holiday in 1992.”

Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson had already threatened action against the state to block the law. Flagstaff and Tucson are now using the boycott as justification to sue the state for the repeal of the law.
Attached is a 4 page list of international, national, state and local organizations, businesses (including sports teams), governments and officials supporting the boycott of Arizona or canceling conventions to be held there.
Organizations Boycotting Arizona.docx
It’s worth noting that some of these organizations (including the Republican National Committee) have canceled events in Arizona not because they have taken a stance against the law, but because they want to show support for or maintain the loyalties of their supporters or consumers who oppose the law or fear harassment.
It’s also worth noting that the Tea Party and other organization are organizing a “buycott” to counter the impact of the boycott.

When thinking of what UUs should about general assembly consider these points of discussion offered by those UU organizations representing UU people of color and allies:
Peter's statement does not answer the following questions.

"1. GA is a Business meeting, not a social witness event. For GA to be transformed along the lines that the Boycotting organizations have stipulated "Educational and Advocacy" we would better having a conference on Racism and "Immigration." We would cut out the internal to UU stuff, the endless reports and the sales of all sorts of artsy stuff. We would be there to witness. Why call that a GA?

2. HOW ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR SAFER in AZ than they were last week? Peter's statement does not deal with that question, does the President see as a issue?

3. The UUA "leadership" is setting us up for BAC/BAWA split by letting the delegates make the decision. Peter is not helping with vague promises of a transformed GA which he then says somebody else will need to decide and plan. Leadership that brings us together against the racist laws is what is needed from the UUA, boycott versus witness are false polarities. Both, no GA but a public witness educational event."


For those who do not know about BAC/BAWA controversy (also known by some UUs as "what happened in Boston"), you might check out http://www.sksm.edu/research/publications/itow.pdf for some background.
Basically, at a period in the 60s when the UUA was not having such a great financial time but was very active in the civil rights movement and had a sizeable number of Black members, General Assembly pledged to support a resolution supporting Black empowerment actions, a funded council and events organized by and for Black people. The UUA backed out of that action citing lack of funds and some resistance to the establishment of an organizing body exclusive to people of color. Many people were willing to fund BAWA, Black and White Alternative (Alternative later changed "Action"), but did not want to fund Black Action Council (BAC). As a result, a number of members of BAWA, BAC, the Black UU Caucus, as well other UUs of all races who were not in these groups, left General Assembly that day and met at the Arlington Street church (in Boston), which had opened its doors as a sanctuary. Following that General Assembly many left the faith completely. While some, like our immediate past president Bill Sinkford, returned years later, most never did.

Comment by Christina Forbes on June 13, 2010 at 10:04am

I just noted that Jim Gunning says local Latino groups are inviting us to come. That would tip in favor of going, and really making statements to the world.

Comment by Christina Forbes on June 13, 2010 at 10:01am

In a way, the most important question is what is the best way to make a statement that resonates with Arizonans, undocumented residents, undocumented parents of citizen children, and with the larger world. Is it to go, organize say a major demonstration co-sponsored by people of all faiths involved in the Sanctuary movement and related groups? To say to the world that these laws, wherever adopted, diminish our humanity? Can we by example, teach the virtues of inclusiveness?

Alternatively, does boycotting make a larger, better, more impactful statement? It certainly will add to the cascade of economic punishments sending messages to Arizona. Is it the right message? Is it a good message to achieve objectives, in this situation?

On balance, I would think that UUA should go to Phoenix, if it can mount "act locally to influence nationally" kind of program elements, parades, visits, marches, linking arms along a major street (remember the day when everyone across the US held hands to make a human chain?), and so forth. Religious guerrilla-ism to the max. Standing, walking, running, leaping on the side of love!

Comment by Natalia Averett on June 13, 2010 at 8:46am

This is indeed a tough issue. If we want to look to UUCA history related to past boycotts and current actions in support of immigration reform:
We are strongly allied with members of the Buckingham community, of UUCA and members of VOICE and the communities it serves who are or are close to undocumented residents. In the 1960s, UUCA challenged racist laws and helped integrate Arlington schools. We joined a boycott/selective support action started by All Souls’ Rev. A. Powell Davies, who published lists of places that banned and places that welcomed people of color and encouraged people to spend according to their values and the information provided on those lists. As a result, dozens of area businesses changed their policies. UUCA has taken to heart the UUA resolution to create a truly anti-racist, anti-oppressive, multicultural Unitarian Universalism and has established many program to achieve this within our own congregation. As part of the UUA, UUCA supported the boycott of Arizona when it refused to recognize MLK day (lawmakers excuse then was that he wasn’t significant enough in US history, relatively speaking, to warrant the honor).
On the money thing, Ft Lauderdale was bad economic situation for the UUA partially because people boycotted attending.
I think the UUA is going to lose some money either way. There is the possibility that the boycott is seen as part of a larger movement already in progress and inspires more people than ever to support the UUA and GA and causes them to see the UUA as reconnecting to congregations (the PR issue around congregations believing the UUA is no longer connected to what’s actually going on in congregations is what led to the UUA’s statements in past GAs about renewing its focus on congregationally based services).
In California, there was a large supermarket strike accompanied by a boycott of those markets. Many people with very little money were adamant about boycotting the markets. There are financial costs at all levels on all sides in a boycott. When the Hyatts and Doubletrees (and the other major brand hotels that UUA GA Planners contract with) lose reservations it will hurt some cleaning staff but it may also help some cleaning staff when senior management and executives, who have the most dollars to lose in absolute terms, start complaining to the politicians who they are raising funds for. If Arizona repeals the law then some of those cleaning staff may actually be more protected financially than they would be if the law stayed in effect.
My questions are:
How much of a major witness is the UUA, with its resources over the next two years, able to organize and how much will this witness impact the careers of Arizona lawmakers as compared to the impact of joining an international boycott already in motion?
What would happen if the general assembly opposes a boycott while many UU organizations representing people of color (and many non UU organizations representing disenfranchised people both inside and outside of Arizona) advocate a boycott? What does this do to our movement already struggling to be inclusive of minorities?
Many regions of the country which have had problems with profiling of minorities have also had problems with excessive use of force and adequate advocacy on behalf of minorities. Does anyone know if there is any information about changes in complaints against police departments in places that have imposed these types of laws? There is usually a police presence at General Assemblies. How will the perception o fthe police and there presence at General Assembly affect the comfort and safety of attendees (particularly those whose communities have been the target of police brutality and racial profiling)?
Is it possible to both witness and boycott as many organizations are doing (sending people to march, calling politicians and pledging not to have conferences, business meetings, or vacation travel in Arizona)?
What’s the picture beyond Arizona and what do we do? Other states are considering these types of measures and some groups are also advocating changing our citizenship laws to deny the right to US born children of the non-citizens. There are also mandates (including our own recently passed healthcare reform bill) that require proof of a student or patients' own citizenship and/or parents citizenship in order to access healthcare or education.
If this is the first step in a journey, where should the UUA be going? What is most strategic action in the long term battle for immigration reform?
Is money a major factor in deciding the boycott? If so, should it be? Is it about values or about cutting our losses? If we are in favor of a boycott based on values but opposed to it from a fiscal prospective, regardless of whether or not it should be, then is there a specific number that would make us comfortable operating on values alone? Does it seem feasible that we could raise that extra money as the UUA board has pledged to do? There are already UUs pledging money to support the boycott of general assembly.

That said, because I feel totally uncomfortable with the current environment in Arizona being imposed by the law and the implied insult to the core of who I am and because I need to be able to look my own family members in the eyes and explain myself, I will not be going near Arizona anytime soon.

My grandmother had a flaming brick thrown through her window (which torched her house) because her husband attempted to participate in society in a way that was not acceptable for people of his skin tone, my father had bricks thrown at him because he tried to participate in society in way that was not (and apparently still is not) acceptable for people with his accent. I’m not helping anyone throw any more bricks at my family.

Comment by John Gunning on June 12, 2010 at 4:14pm

For what it is worth, local Latino organizations are inviting the UUA to come to Phoenix in 2012 and witness with them. Our UUA Board of Trustees and the organizations supporting their recommendatiln to boycott are all national organizations.

Our UUCA delegation will need to think long and hard about how to vote at GA in Minneapolis in just a few days.

Comment by Bea Ann Phillips on June 12, 2010 at 9:53am

Very tough issue indeed. As a meeting planner, I am deliberately avoiding AZ as a meeting destination for the foreseeable future. However, I am not entirely convinced that is the best-- and most responsible-- solution to this injustice. Fact is, taking business out of AZ does indeed negatively impact the very people we are actively supporting. It is also important to keep in mind the considerable financial stake of moving the conference-- over half a million dollars in penalties to UUA, which is already suffering. This is not insignificant and we will feel the repercussions of those penalties for years to come, in many ways.

Peter makes very good arguments for staying in AZ and aligning with other groups while there..... I think this is worth your very careful consideration.

My two cents...

Bea Ann Phillips